Playgama MCP - Publish & Manage HTML5 Games

Read the Playgama Bridge SDK docs

get_bridge_sdk_docs

Read-onlyIdempotent

The live Playgama Bridge SDK wiki. Start with page: api: its Required steps are mandatory for every game — read them when you start work on a game and before integrating the SDK, and again when an archive answered bridgeSdk: NOT_FOUND. Without page: the index, one { page, title, required, description? } per page. With page (an id from the index, e.g. "api/storage"): that page’s title, url and markdown, cut to engine’s tabs when the page has tabs and one matches — engineFilter says which tabs existed and which were kept. An unknown page is refused with the list of valid ids. The rules the whole game must meet are get_game_checklist; recommendations are get_game_guides.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_bridge_sdk_docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Page id from the index this tool answers without `page`, e.g. "api/storage" or "api/advertisement/rewarded". A link copied from a wiki page works as-is (with or without `.md`, with or without an anchor — the anchor is ignored; the whole page comes back). Omit to get that index.
`engine`	No	Engine or binding to keep code samples for, matched against the page’s tab titles (e.g. "Plain JS", "Unity", "Construct 3", "GDevelop", "Godot" — matches both Godot 3.x and 4.x —, "GameMaker", "Defold", "Cocos Creator", "Scratch"). Omit to keep every engine’s tab.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing error behavior (an unknown `page` is refused with the list of valid ids) and filtering behavior (`engine` trims the page to matching tabs, `engineFilter` reports which tabs existed and were kept). The only thing left implicit is nothing meaningful, though the disclosure is compact rather than exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The essential guidance ('Start with `page: api`' and the mandatory-steps warning) is front-loaded and nothing is filler. It is dense with semicolons and em-dashes, which trades a little readability for compactness, but every clause carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully: it describes the index record shape `{ page, title, required, description? }` and the single-page payload (title, url, markdown) plus `engineFilter`. For a two-parameter read tool with no required params, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that `page` ids come from the index returned without `page`, that omitted `page` yields the index, and that `engine` cuts the page to matching tabs while `engineFilter` reveals what happened. That is behavior-level semantics the schema alone does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names the specific resource (the live Playgama Bridge SDK wiki) and the body distinguishes the two modes: index without `page`, single page with `page`. It also explicitly names the sibling boundary against get_game_checklist (mandatory rules) and get_game_guides (recommendations), so an agent can separate it from the other doc-ish tools without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit when-to-use instructions: read `page: api` when starting work on a game, before integrating the SDK, and again when an archive answered `bridgeSdk: NOT_FOUND`. It also names the alternative tools and their scopes, so both the trigger conditions and the exclusions are stated rather than inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Playgama MCP - Publish & Manage HTML5 Games tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?